Another Liberal myth: Oil compainies get subsidies/tax breaks

[JRK]

Grammer vs the future of this country, ok
Hey BOO
IGNORE, your still there

 

[CrusaderFrank]

100 year old depreciation and write-off and the new subsides.

LOL

Fucking morons.

This is the level of ignorance you need in order to believe that "Hope" and "Change" are solid economic ideas; you can't rack up chronic 8% unemployment and trillion dollar deficits without it

 

[boilermaker55]

(CBS News) WASHINGTON - Climbing gas prices have drivers looking for someone to blame. And politicians are looking to take advantage.


Senate Republicans Thursday shot down President Obama's plan to cut off oil companies' tax breaks.


The president says there's not much he can do to control gas prices. Nonetheless, he's working hard to appear to be trying.


He came to the White House rose garden Thursday to urge the Senate to repeal $4 billion in tax subsidies for big oil companies, even though no one thinks that would lower prices at the pump.


"They can either vote to spend billions of dollars on oil subsidies that keep us trapped in the past," said Mr. Obama, "or they can vote to end these taxpayer subsidies that aren't needed to boost oil production."


But moments after the president's plea, the Senate voted 51-47 against the bill, with four Democrats in the majority.

GOP blocks Obama's bid to end oil subsidies - CBS News
Oil subsidies stay as GOP blocks Senate repeal | Strange Bedfellows — Politics News - seattlepi.com
So its a lie? Doubt it again.Nice try right wing hack.

So the president calls a fixed tax rate that a company pays a subsidy?
your figuring this out. IT IS THE INTENT OF THE THREAD
You and I pay income tax, or at least I can say I do. Do you consider the dependants you claim a subsidy?
If not then what is the difference in what the oil compnaies pay and you and I pay?

To have an expense to risk millions in finding more oil is not a "dependant" in the grand scheme of things in the tax code, than what is?
There is what BHO calls a "subsidy" but in rela life its nothing more than a tax rate

One more question, who will pay for that tax hike if BHO got his way?
You think there is a special fund that exists only to pay taxes?

think about it and get back to me

Let's make them pay for what they do.
Simple little idea that some might not understand.
Less big bonuses for the CEO's more money put back into their operations.

 

[JRK]

(CBS News) WASHINGTON - Climbing gas prices have drivers looking for someone to blame. And politicians are looking to take advantage.


Senate Republicans Thursday shot down President Obama's plan to cut off oil companies' tax breaks.


The president says there's not much he can do to control gas prices. Nonetheless, he's working hard to appear to be trying.


He came to the White House rose garden Thursday to urge the Senate to repeal $4 billion in tax subsidies for big oil companies, even though no one thinks that would lower prices at the pump.


"They can either vote to spend billions of dollars on oil subsidies that keep us trapped in the past," said Mr. Obama, "or they can vote to end these taxpayer subsidies that aren't needed to boost oil production."


But moments after the president's plea, the Senate voted 51-47 against the bill, with four Democrats in the majority.

GOP blocks Obama's bid to end oil subsidies - CBS News
Oil subsidies stay as GOP blocks Senate repeal | Strange Bedfellows — Politics News - seattlepi.com
So its a lie? Doubt it again.Nice try right wing hack.

So the president calls a fixed tax rate that a company pays a subsidy?
your figuring this out. IT IS THE INTENT OF THE THREAD
You and I pay income tax, or at least I can say I do. Do you consider the dependants you claim a subsidy?
If not then what is the difference in what the oil compnaies pay and you and I pay?

To have an expense to risk millions in finding more oil is not a "dependant" in the grand scheme of things in the tax code, than what is?
There is what BHO calls a "subsidy" but in rela life its nothing more than a tax rate

One more question, who will pay for that tax hike if BHO got his way?
You think there is a special fund that exists only to pay taxes?

think about it and get back to me

Let's make them pay for what they do.
Simple little idea that some might not understand.
Less big bonuses for the CEO's more money put back into their operations.

Another thread, and there are times I get agitated with same, but that agitation comes with the freedom's we all enjoy

Your a boliermaker I would assume
what are you going to do after they shut down these coal fired units for work in the spring and fall?
where will the next turn arounds be for your brothers?
I am supporter of the trades and have worked hand in hand with the BMs

Ask your self whats next? these Combined cycle units do not need your expertise, not much any-way

 

[boilermaker55]

So the president calls a fixed tax rate that a company pays a subsidy?
your figuring this out. IT IS THE INTENT OF THE THREAD
You and I pay income tax, or at least I can say I do. Do you consider the dependants you claim a subsidy?
If not then what is the difference in what the oil compnaies pay and you and I pay?

To have an expense to risk millions in finding more oil is not a "dependant" in the grand scheme of things in the tax code, than what is?
There is what BHO calls a "subsidy" but in rela life its nothing more than a tax rate

One more question, who will pay for that tax hike if BHO got his way?
You think there is a special fund that exists only to pay taxes?

think about it and get back to me

Let's make them pay for what they do.
Simple little idea that some might not understand.
Less big bonuses for the CEO's more money put back into their operations.

Another thread, and there are times I get agitated with same, but that agitation comes with the freedom's we all enjoy

Your a boliermaker I would assume
what are you going to do after they shut down these coal fired units for work in the spring and fall?
where will the next turn arounds be for your brothers?
I am supporter of the trades and have worked hand in hand with the BMs

Ask your self whats next? these Combined cycle units do not need your expertise, not much any-way

Let me put it this way. Myself, I am not afraid of those who sit in judgement. The power they have because of money does not scare me. If they close down any plants it is because they want too. If they are making money in any plant, seriously, do you think they will shut it down? No. The only time they would shut down a plant of any kind is when it does not make them money.
And this opens up an entirely new subject to discuss.

 

[NYcarbineer]

On November 9, 2005, the Senate Committees on Commerce, Science and Transportation and Energy and Natural Resources held a joint hearing with five oil company CEOs.

When asked by Senator Ron Wyden whether they disagreed with President Bush’s statement that oil subsidies are unnecessary to encourage exploration, they all responded that they did not disagree:

Leo Raymond, CEO, ExxonMobil: No, I do not think our company has asked for any incentives for exploration.

David O’Reilly, CEO, ChevronTexaco: Agreed. James Mulva, CEO, ConocoPhillips: In my oral comments, I said we do not need. …

Ross Pillari. CEO, BP America. He is correct.

John Hofmeister, CEO, Shell: Yes, he is.

So, not only did the top oil execs acknowledge the existence of the subsidies/tax breaks,

they also admitted they did not need them.


http://democrats.oversight.house.go...ucts/COOGR Democratic Oil Report 05-23-11.pdf

 

[JRK]

Let's make them pay for what they do.
Simple little idea that some might not understand.
Less big bonuses for the CEO's more money put back into their operations.

Another thread, and there are times I get agitated with same, but that agitation comes with the freedom's we all enjoy

Your a boliermaker I would assume
what are you going to do after they shut down these coal fired units for work in the spring and fall?
where will the next turn arounds be for your brothers?
I am supporter of the trades and have worked hand in hand with the BMs

Ask your self whats next? these Combined cycle units do not need your expertise, not much any-way

Let me put it this way. Myself, I am not afraid of those who sit in judgement. The power they have because of money does not scare me. If they close down any plants it is because they want too. If they are making money in any plant, seriously, do you think they will shut it down? No. The only time they would shut down a plant of any kind is when it does not make them money.
And this opens up an entirely new subject to discuss.

Obama is shutting them down
no-one else
Getting ready for a wave of coal-plant shutdowns - The Washington Post
Look Obama has been dis honest, and yes this is another subject, but the mans word is no different

 

[boilermaker55]

Another thread, and there are times I get agitated with same, but that agitation comes with the freedom's we all enjoy

Your a boliermaker I would assume
what are you going to do after they shut down these coal fired units for work in the spring and fall?
where will the next turn arounds be for your brothers?
I am supporter of the trades and have worked hand in hand with the BMs

Ask your self whats next? these Combined cycle units do not need your expertise, not much any-way

Let me put it this way. Myself, I am not afraid of those who sit in judgement. The power they have because of money does not scare me. If they close down any plants it is because they want too. If they are making money in any plant, seriously, do you think they will shut it down? No. The only time they would shut down a plant of any kind is when it does not make them money.
And this opens up an entirely new subject to discuss.

Obama is shutting them down
no-one else
Getting ready for a wave of coal-plant shutdowns - The Washington Post
Look Obama has been dis honest, and yes this is another subject, but the mans word is no different

Really? You think that is what is happening.
Not in my lifetime or yours.

 

[JRK]

Let me put it this way. Myself, I am not afraid of those who sit in judgement. The power they have because of money does not scare me. If they close down any plants it is because they want too. If they are making money in any plant, seriously, do you think they will shut it down? No. The only time they would shut down a plant of any kind is when it does not make them money.
And this opens up an entirely new subject to discuss.

Obama is shutting them down
no-one else
Getting ready for a wave of coal-plant shutdowns - The Washington Post
Look Obama has been dis honest, and yes this is another subject, but the mans word is no different

Really? You think that is what is happening.
Not in my lifetime or yours.

BM were are brothers in arms
It is allready happening. I got friends working on these projects all ready
Look dont take my for it, do some DD
This is a done deal

There are conflicting numbers as to how many, but its huge and as I say its allready began. There building a bunch of combined cycle units north of Atlanta right now and the old caol burner is shut down all ready

Again, do not take my word for it, do your own DD, its allready started and by 2016 its going to be wide open

 

[BlindBoo]

Another thread, and there are times I get agitated with same, but that agitation comes with the freedom's we all enjoy

Your a boliermaker I would assume
what are you going to do after they shut down these coal fired units for work in the spring and fall?
where will the next turn arounds be for your brothers?
I am supporter of the trades and have worked hand in hand with the BMs

Ask your self whats next? these Combined cycle units do not need your expertise, not much any-way

Let me put it this way. Myself, I am not afraid of those who sit in judgement. The power they have because of money does not scare me. If they close down any plants it is because they want too. If they are making money in any plant, seriously, do you think they will shut it down? No. The only time they would shut down a plant of any kind is when it does not make them money.
And this opens up an entirely new subject to discuss.

Obama is shutting them down
no-one else
Getting ready for a wave of coal-plant shutdowns - The Washington Post
Look Obama has been dis honest, and yes this is another subject, but the mans word is no different

These clips are from the above article.

This month, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, which conducts policy research for members of Congress, has been circulating a paper that tries to calmly sort through the shouting match. Thanks to The Hill’s Andrew Restuccia, it’s now available (PDF) for all to read.
And the upshot is that CRS is awfully skeptical of the “train wreck” predictions.

First, the report agrees that the new rules will likely force the closure of many coal plants between now and 2017, although it’s difficult to know precisely how many. For green groups, that’s a feature, not a bug: Many of these will be the oldest and dirtiest plants around. About 110 gigawatts, or one-third of all coal capacity in the United States, came online between 1940 and 1969. Many of these plants were grandfathered in under the Clean Air Act, and about two-thirds of them don’t have scrubbers:

CRS notes that many of the plants most affected by the new EPA rules were facing extinction anyway: “Many of these plants are inefficient and are being replaced by more efficient combined cycle natural gas plants, a development likely to be encouraged if the price of competing fuel—natural gas—continues to be low, almost regardless of EPA rules.”

Still, that’s a lot of plants. Won’t this wreak havoc on the grid? Not necessarily, the CRS report says, although the transition won’t be simple. For one, most of these plants don’t provide as much baseload power as it appears on first glance—pre-1970 coal plants operating without emissions controls are in use, on average, only about 41 percent of the time. Second, the report notes that “there is a substantial amount of excess generation capacity at present,” caused by the recession and the boom in natural gas plants. Many of those plants can pitch in to satisfy peak demand. Third, electric utilities can add capacity fairly quickly if needed — from 2000 to 2003, utilities added more than 200 gigawatts of new capacity, far, far more than the amount that will be lost between now and 2017.

 

[bripat9643]

On November 9, 2005, the Senate Committees on Commerce, Science and Transportation and Energy and Natural Resources held a joint hearing with five oil company CEOs.

When asked by Senator Ron Wyden whether they disagreed with President Bush’s statement that oil subsidies are unnecessary to encourage exploration, they all responded that they did not disagree:

Leo Raymond, CEO, ExxonMobil: No, I do not think our company has asked for any incentives for exploration.

David O’Reilly, CEO, ChevronTexaco: Agreed. James Mulva, CEO, ConocoPhillips: In my oral comments, I said we do not need. …

Ross Pillari. CEO, BP America. He is correct.

John Hofmeister, CEO, Shell: Yes, he is.

So, not only did the top oil execs acknowledge the existence of the subsidies/tax breaks,

they also admitted they did not need them.


http://democrats.oversight.house.go...ucts/COOGR Democratic Oil Report 05-23-11.pdf

Where did they acknowledge the existence of subsidies/tax breaks?

 

[JRK]

On November 9, 2005, the Senate Committees on Commerce, Science and Transportation and Energy and Natural Resources held a joint hearing with five oil company CEOs.

When asked by Senator Ron Wyden whether they disagreed with President Bush’s statement that oil subsidies are unnecessary to encourage exploration, they all responded that they did not disagree:

Leo Raymond, CEO, ExxonMobil: No, I do not think our company has asked for any incentives for exploration.

David O’Reilly, CEO, ChevronTexaco: Agreed. James Mulva, CEO, ConocoPhillips: In my oral comments, I said we do not need. …

Ross Pillari. CEO, BP America. He is correct.

John Hofmeister, CEO, Shell: Yes, he is.

So, not only did the top oil execs acknowledge the existence of the subsidies/tax breaks,

they also admitted they did not need them.


http://democrats.oversight.house.go...ucts/COOGR Democratic Oil Report 05-23-11.pdf

Where did the acknowledge the existence of subsidies/tax breaks?

The Liberal mind works in a manner in which words as there defined have no meaning
1.
a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like.

2.
a sum paid, often in accordance with a treaty, by one government to another to secure some service in return.

3.
a grant or contribution of money.

4.
money formerly granted by the English Parliament to the crown for special needs.

Let me add IF GWB used those exact words, he is just as wrong
BTW the definition is here
Subsidy | Define Subsidy at Dictionary.com

Paying ones taxes is not nor does it have anything to do with being subsidized
it is an out-right lie
Asking any question in that form or making comment on it is a fact dis honest

 

[g5000]

you raise taxes on Exxon, your rasing taxes on you
its that simple

This is exactly why we need a complete overhaul of our tax code. There are so many carve-outs it has become blatant corruption.

Basically a carve-out goes like this: "All businesses must pay 25% tax, except this company over here which contributed big bucks to our campaigns."

This is a grossly uncompetitive system we have now.

When someone else's taxes goes down, yours have to go up to "balance the budget".



Throw out the entire tax code. It is one gigantic pile of exemptions bought through open bribery.

Start from scratch. Everyone pays the same amount. No exceptions.

Then YOU will pay a lot less in taxes, so who cares if Exxon raises your gasoline a penny?

Level playing field, and may the best business model win.

 

[JRK]

you raise taxes on Exxon, your rasing taxes on you
its that simple

This is exactly why we need a complete overhaul of our tax code. There are so many carve-outs it has become blatant corruption.

Basically a carve-out goes like this: "All businesses must pay 25% tax, except this company over here which contributed big bucks to our campaigns."

This is a grossly uncompetitive system we have now.

When someone else's taxes goes down, yours have to go up to "balance the budget".



Throw out the entire tax code. It is one gigantic pile of exemptions bought through open bribery.

Start from scratch. Everyone pays the same amount. No exceptions.

Then YOU will pay a lot less in taxes, so who cares if Exxon raises your gasoline a penny?

Level playing field, and may the best business model win.

The very reason we will not change the tax code is so Obama can use the term subsidy
No sh--
I agree 100%, in fact we need a sales type tax code such as Texas and Florida has

Think of the jobs we would create if someone making 50,000 a year were allowed to keep that and used it to purchase that they were allowed to keep
Companies would RUN back to this country

Having the tax code we have is a job killing event its that simple

 

[NYcarbineer]

On November 9, 2005, the Senate Committees on Commerce, Science and Transportation and Energy and Natural Resources held a joint hearing with five oil company CEOs.

When asked by Senator Ron Wyden whether they disagreed with President Bush’s statement that oil subsidies are unnecessary to encourage exploration, they all responded that they did not disagree:

Leo Raymond, CEO, ExxonMobil: No, I do not think our company has asked for any incentives for exploration.

David O’Reilly, CEO, ChevronTexaco: Agreed. James Mulva, CEO, ConocoPhillips: In my oral comments, I said we do not need. …

Ross Pillari. CEO, BP America. He is correct.

John Hofmeister, CEO, Shell: Yes, he is.

So, not only did the top oil execs acknowledge the existence of the subsidies/tax breaks,

they also admitted they did not need them.


http://democrats.oversight.house.go...ucts/COOGR Democratic Oil Report 05-23-11.pdf

Where did they acknowledge the existence of subsidies/tax breaks?

They are off in the land of People-Who-Can-Read.

 

[g5000]

On November 9, 2005, the Senate Committees on Commerce, Science and Transportation and Energy and Natural Resources held a joint hearing with five oil company CEOs.

When asked by Senator Ron Wyden whether they disagreed with President Bush’s statement that oil subsidies are unnecessary to encourage exploration, they all responded that they did not disagree:

Leo Raymond, CEO, ExxonMobil: No, I do not think our company has asked for any incentives for exploration.

David O’Reilly, CEO, ChevronTexaco: Agreed. James Mulva, CEO, ConocoPhillips: In my oral comments, I said we do not need. …

Ross Pillari. CEO, BP America. He is correct.

John Hofmeister, CEO, Shell: Yes, he is.

So, not only did the top oil execs acknowledge the existence of the subsidies/tax breaks,

they also admitted they did not need them.


http://democrats.oversight.house.go...ucts/COOGR Democratic Oil Report 05-23-11.pdf

Where did they acknowledge the existence of subsidies/tax breaks?

Page 8 of the link:

Since he left his company, former Shell CEO John Hofmeister has made clear that his position has not changed since his testimony. On February 11, 2011, he stated, “In the face of sustained high oil prices it was not an issue—for large companies—of needing the subsidies to entice us into looking for and producing more oil.”

 

[g5000]

It is undeniable that oil companies, among others, get tax breaks. Unfortunately, many politicians, laymen, and media types conflate the term "subsidy" with "tax break". They are not the same thing.

In the link above, we see these terms used interchangeably in the same sentence:

Eliminating these tax preferences, which subsidize fossil fuel production, will both reduce the federal deficit and expedite the transition to a cleaner‐energy economy. Critics of repealing these subsidies argue that the targeted tax breaks spur production and lower energy prices.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Joe Barton vigorously defending these non-existent tax credits:

Barton: Govt Subsidies Necessary To Keep Exxon From Going Out Of Business | TPMDC

 

[g5000]

This is funny because I was actually contemplating starting a topic this past weekend called "When Tax Credits Become A Subsidy". There are certain situations, like in ObamaCare, when this is the case.

However, all this smoke and mirrors asking for evidence of "subsidies" in this topic conceals the very real fact that oil companies do get tax breaks from Congress. Tax breaks, by definition, are an exemption not given equally to all, and are therefore uncompetitive. They create an unlevel playing field.

So let's remove all of them (not just oil carve outs), lower everyone's tax rate, and see who has a failure for a business model and who does not.

 

[JRK]

This is funny because I was actually contemplating starting a topic this past weekend called "When Tax Credits Become A Subsidy". There are certain situations, like in ObamaCare, when this is the case.

However, all this smoke and mirrors asking for evidence of "subsidies" in this topic conceals the very real fact that oil companies do get tax breaks from Congress. Tax breaks, by definition, are an exemption not given equally to all, and are therefore uncompetitive. They create an unlevel playing field.

So let's remove all of them (not just oil carve outs), lower everyone's tax rate, and see who has a failure for a business model and who does not.

Unlike the libs way of discussion, your post is done with respect
Terms, the use of words

Let me know share with you why I have an issue with the term "tax break"

I work
I earn 75,000
I am given a 8000 "tax break" for 1 dependant
I have paid in 10,000 in income tax

I pay income tax on 67000

Now I know thats part of the deal, we all have to pay income tax, and even though I would like to see a system like Florida has, I also think my rate is to hi, I pay that rate that expected of me

At no time during this event do I feel I have been given a subsidy nor a break for that "dependant" write off I am afforded. There is 0 difference in this and what the oil companies pay in a manner of an example as what there given as write offs excpet one
I will get back to that

Oil companies earn wealth first
Pay taxes on that wealth next
now explain to me how any of this is a break?

Back to the only differnce in a general example the libs can relate to (that actually work and pay income tax)
When the oil companies have an increase in the rate of tax we pay, they do a direct pass thru to us
There is no special "money tree" to "pluck" that extra wealth from, whether it be in wages, Price of the product, or a change in the stock make up

bottom-line a higher tax rate to them cost us, simple economics, simple trickle down economics